The source of unexplored opportunities or an unpredictable risk factor?

Could artificial intelligences be subject to the same laws as human beings?

doi: 10.53116/pgaflr.2021.2.8


The Collingridge dilemma or ‘dilemma of control’ presents a problem at the intersection of law, society and technology. New technologies can still be influenced, whether by regulation or policy, in their early stage of development, but their impact on society remains unpredictable. In contrast, once new technologies have become embedded in society, their implications and consequences are clear, but their development can no longer be affected. Resulting in the great challenge of the pacing problem – how technological development increasingly outpaces the creation of appropriate laws and regulations. My paper examines the problematic entanglement and relationship of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and a key aspect of the rule of law, legal certainty. AI is our modern age’s fastest developing and most important technological advancement, a key driver for global socio-economic development, encompassing a broad spectrum of technologies between simple automation and autonomous decision-making. It has the potential to improve healthcare, transportation, communication and to contribute to climate change mitigation. However, its development carries an equal amount of risk, including opaque decision-making, gender-based or other kinds of discrimination, intrusion into private lives and misuse for criminal purposes. The transformative nature of AI technology impacts and challenges law and policymaking. The paper considers the impact of AI through legal certainty on the rule of law, how it may undermine its various elements, among others foreseeability, comprehensibility and clarity of norms. It does so by elaborating on AI’s potential threat brought on by its opacity (‘black box effect’), complexity, unpredictability and partially autonomous behaviour, which all can impede the effective verification of compliance with and the enforcement of new as well as already existing legal rules in international, European and national systems. My paper offers insight into a human-centric and risk-based approach towards AI, based on consideration of legal and ethical questions surrounding the topic, to help ensure transparency and legal certainty in regulatory interventions for the benefit of optimising efficiency of new technologies as well as protecting the existing safeguards of legal certainty.


artificial intelligence modern technology legal personhood human dignity rule of law

How to Cite

Szentgáli-Tóth, B. (2022). The source of unexplored opportunities or an unpredictable risk factor? Could artificial intelligences be subject to the same laws as human beings?. Public Governance, Administration and Finances Law Review, 6(2), 101–119.


Aitchison, G. (2018). Rights, citizenship and political struggle. European Journal of Political Theory, 17(1), 147–148. Online:

Alač, M., Movellan, J. & Tanaka, F. (2011). When a robot is social: Spatial arrangements and multimodal

semiotic engagement in the practice of social robotics. Social Studies of Science, 41(6). Online:

Anderson, K., Reisner, D. & Waxman, M. (2014). Adapting the Law of Armed Conflict to Autonomous

Weapon Systems. International Law Studies, 90, 386–411. Online:

Anderson, S. L. (2008). Asimov’s “Three Laws of Robotics” and Machine Metaethics. AI and Society, 22(4), 477–493. Online:

Armstrong, C. & Mason, A. (2011). Introduction: Democratic citizenship and its futures. Critical Review

of International Social and Political Philosophy, 14(5), 553–560. Online:

Ashley, K. D. (2017). Artificial Intelligence and Legal Analytics. New Tools for Law Practice in the Digital

Age. Cambridge University Press. Online:

Atabekov, A. & Yastrebov, O. (2018). Legal Status of Artificial Intelligence Across Countries: Legislation on

the Move. European Research Studies Journal, 21(4), 773–782. Online:

Balkin, J. B. (2015). The Path of Robotics Law. The Circuit, Paper 72. Online:

Barber, M. D. (2008). The Participating Citizen. Human Studies, 31(2), 229–232.

Barfield, W. & Pagallo, U. (2018). Research Handbook on the Law of Artificial Intelligence. Edward Elgar

Publishing. Online:

Beck, S. (2016). The Problem of Ascribing Legal Responsibility in the Case of Robotics. Artificial Intelligence

and Society, 31(4), 473–481. Online:

Bellini, P. (2016). Virtualization of the Real and Citizenship. People, Power, Society, and Persons. Philosophy

and Public Issues (New Series), 6(3), 79–93. Online:

Benhabib, S. (2006). Democratic Boundaries and Economic Citizenship. Enhancing the “Rights of Others”.

Social Philosophy Today, 22, 249–260. Online:

Brettschneider, C. (2011). Free and Equal Citizenship and Non-Profit Status. Political Theory, 39(6), 785–792. Online:

Brinck, I. & Balkenius, C. (2020). Mutual Recognition in Human-Robot Interaction: a Deflationary Account.

Philosophy and Technology, 33(1), 1–18. Online:

Brożek, B. & Jakubiec, M. (2017). On the legal responsibility of autonomous machines. Artificial Intelligence

and Law, 25(3), 293–304. Online:

Buchstein, H. (2000). Cybercitizens and theory of democracy. Filosofický časopis, 48(6), 973–998.

Buiten, M. C. (2019). Towards Intelligent Regulation of Artificial Intelligence. European Journal of Risk

Regulation, 10(1), 41–59. Online:

Calo, R., Froomkin, A. M. & Kerr, I. (2016). Robot Law. Edward Elgar Publishing. Online:

Castro, V. F. (2014). Shaping Robotic Minds. In J. Seibt, R. Hakli & M. Norskov (Eds.), Sociable Robots and

the Future of Social Relations (pp. 71–78). IOS Press.

Cerka, P., Grigiene, J. & Sirbikyte, G. (2017): Is it possible to grant legal personality to artificial intelligence

software systems? Computer Law & Security Review, 33(5), 685–699. Online:

Chen, J. & Burgess, P. (2019). The boundaries of legal personhood: how spontaneous intelligence can

problematise differences between humans, artificial intelligence, companies and animals. Artificial

Intelligence and Law, 27(1), 73–92. Online:

Chopra, S. & Laurence, F. W. (2011). The Legal Theory of Autonomous Artificial Agents. University of

Michigan Press. Online:

Comstock, G. (2015). Do Machines Have Prima Facie Duties? In S. P. van Rysewyk & M. Pontier (Eds.),

Machine Medical Ethics (pp. 79–92). Springer. Online:

Contissa, G., Lagioia, F. & Sartor, G. (2017). The Ethical Knob: ethically-customisable automated vehicles

and the law. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 25(3), 365–378. Online:

Cuthbertson, A. (2017, November 6). Tokyo: Artificial Intelligence ‘Boy’ Shibuya Mirai Becomes World’s First AI Bot to Be Granted Residency. Tech & Science. Online:

Dabass, J. & Dabass, B. S. (2018). Scope of Artificial Intelligence in Law. Preprints, 2018060474. Online:

Dahiyat, E. A. R. (2021). Law and software agents: Are they “Agents” by the way? Artificial Intelligence and

Law, 29(1), 59–86. Online:

Danaher, J. (2016). Robots, law and the retribution gap. Ethics and Information Technology, 18(4), 299–309.


De Cock Buning, M., Belder, L. & de Bruin, R. (2012). Mapping the legal and normative framework for the sustainable development of Autonomous Intelligent Systems in Society. In S. Muller, S. Zouridis, M. Frishman & L. Kistemaker (Eds.), The Law of the Future and the Future of Law (Vol. 2, pp. 195–210). Torkel Opsahl Academic Publisher.

Deva, S. (2012). Can Robots have Human Rights Obligations? A Futuristic Exploration. In S. Muller, S.

Zouridis, M. Frishman & L. Kistemaker (Eds.), The Law of the Future and the Future of Law (Vol. 2, pp. 185–194). Torkel Opsahl Academic Publisher.

Di Bello, M. & Verheij, B. (2020). Evidence & decision making in the law: theoretical, computational and

empirical approaches. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 28(1), 1–5. Online:

Donaldson, S. & Kymlicka, W. (2013). Reply: Animal Citizenship, Liberal Theory and the Historical Moment. Dialogue, 52(4), 769–786. Online:

Eidenmueller, H. G. M. (2017). The Rise of Robots and the Law of Humans. Oxford Legal Studies Research

Paper, 27, 1–15. Online:

Elton, M. (1997). Robots and Rights: the ethical demands of Artificial Agents. Ends and Means, 1(2).

Ferracioli, L. (2017). Citizenship Allocation and Withdrawal: Some Normative Issues. Philosophy Compass, 12(12). Online:

Fischer, K. (2014). People do not interact with Robots like they do with dogs. Interaction Studies, 15(2), 201–204. Online:

Fossa, F. (2018a). Artificial Moral Agents: Moral Mentors or Sensible Tools? Ethics and Information Technology,

(2), 115–126. Online:

Fossa, F. (2018b). Legal Fictions and the Essence of Robots: Thoughts on Essentialism and Pragmatism in

the Regulation of Robotics. In M. Coeckelbergh, J. Loh, M. Funk, J. Seibt & M. Nørskov (Eds.), Envisioning

Robots in Society – Power, Politics, and Public Space (pp. 103–111). IOS Press.

Gohd, Ch. (2018, July 11). Here’s What Sophia, the First Robot Citizen, Thinks About Gender andConsciousness. Live Science. Online:

Gunkel, D. J. (2018). The Other Question: Can and Should Robots Have Rights? Ethics and Information

Technology, 20(2), 87–99. Online:

Hacker, P., Krestel, R., Grundmann, S. & Naumann, F. (2020). Explainable AI under contract and tort law: legal incentives and technical challenges. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 28(4), 415–439. Online:

Hage, J. (2017). Theoretical foundations for the responsiblity of autonomous agents. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 25(3), 255–271. Online:

Hakli, R. & Mäkelä, P. (2016). Robots, Autonomy, and Responsibility. In J. Seibt, M. Nørskov & S. S. Andersen (Eds.), What Social Robots Can and Should Do: Proceedings of Robophilosophy 2016 (pp. 145–154). IOS Press. Online:

Hakli, R. & Seibt, J. (Eds.) (2017). Sociality and Normativity for Robots. Studies in the Philosophy of Sociality. Springer. Online:

Hallevy, G. (2013). When Robots Kill – Artificial Intelligence Under Criminal Law. Northeastern University Press.

Hart, R. D. (2018, February 14). Saudi Arabia’s robot citizen is eroding human rights. Quartz. Online:

Hovdal-Moan, M. (2014). Unequal Residence Statuses and the Ideal of Non-Domination. Critical Review

of International Social and Political Philosophy, 17(1), 70–89. Online:

Khisamova, Z. I., Begishev, I. R. & Gaifutdinov, R. R. (2019). On Methods to Legal Regulation of Artificial Intelligence in the World. International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering, 9(1), 5159–5162. Online:

Kingston, J. (2017). Using artificial intelligence to support compliance with the general data protection regulation. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 25(3), 429–443. Online:

Lindemann, G. (2016). Social interaction with robots: three questions. AI & Society, 31, 573–575. Online:

Luetge, Ch. (2017). The German Ethics Code for Automated and Connected Driving. Philosophy and Technology, 30( 4), 547–558. Online:

MacDorman, K. F. & Kahn, P. H. Jr. (2007). Introduction to the Special Issue on Psychological Benchmarks

of Human–Robot Interaction. Interaction Studies, 8(3), 359–362. Online:

Magrani, E. (2019). New perspectives on ethics and the laws of artificial intelligence. Internet Policy Review, 8(3), 1–19. Online:

McFarland, D., Bosser, T., Cherian, S. & Troxell, W. O. (1997). Intelligent behavior in animals and robots. Minds and Machines, 7(3), 452–455. Online:

Miller, L. F. (2015). Granting Automata Human Rights: Challenge to a Basis of Full-Rights Privilege. Human Rights Review, 16(4), 369–391. Online:

Mitterauer, B. J. (2013). Robots with Consciousness: Creating a Third Nature. International Journal of

Machine Consciousness, 5(2), 179–193. Online:

Müller, V. C. (2021). Ethics of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2021 Edition). Online:

Nomura, T., Suzuki, T., Kanda, T. & Kato, K. (2006). Measurement of Negative Attitudes Toward Robots. Interaction Studies, 7(3), 437–454. Online:

Nurse, A. & Ryland, D. (2013). A question of citizenship. Journal of Animal Ethics, 3(2), 201–207. Online:

Palmerini, E., Bertolini, A., Battaglia, F., Koops, B.-J., Carnevale, A. & Salvini, P. (2016). RoboLaw: Towards a European framework for robotics regulation. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 86, 78–85. Online:

Perina, M. L. (2006). Race and the Politics of Citizenship: The Conflict Over Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis.

International Studies in Philosophy, 38(2), 123–139. Online:

Rem, D. & Gasper, D. (2018). Citizens and Citizenship. International Journal of Social Quality, 8(1), 21–48. Online:

Retto, J. (2017). Sophia, First Citizen Robot of the World. Manuscript. Online:

Reynolds, E. (2018, June 1). The agony of Sophia, the world’s first robot citizen condemned to a lifeless career

in marketing. Wired. Online:

Rose, R., Scheutz, M. & Schermerhorn, P. (2010). Towards a Conceptual and Methodological Framework

for Determining Robot Believability. Interaction Studies: Social Behaviour and Communication in

Biological and Artificial Systems, 11(2), 314–335. Online:

Schellekens, M. (2015). Self-driving cars and the chilling effect of liability law. Computer Law & Security

Review, 31(4), 506–517. Online:

Scherer, M. U. (2016). Regulating Artificial Intelligence Systems: Risks, Challenges, Competencies, and

Strategies. Harvard Review of Law and Technology, 29(2), 354–400. Online:

Schwitzgebel, E. & Garza, M. (2015). A Defense of the Rights of Artificial Intelligences. Midwest Studies in

Philosophy, 39(1), 98–119. Online:

Sharkey, A. (2014). Robots and Human Dignity: A Consideration of the Effects of Robot Care on the Dignity

of Older People. Ethics and Information Technology, 16(1), 63–75. Online:

Simmler, M. & Markwalder, N. (2019). Guilty Robots? – Rethinking the Nature of Culpability and Legal

Personhood in an Age of Artificial Intelligence. Criminal Law Forum, 30(1), 1–31. Online:

Solaiman, S. M. (2017). Legal personality of robots, corporations, idols and chimpanzees: a quest for legitimacy.

Artificial Intelligence and Law, 25(2), 155–179. Online:

Solum, L. B. (1992). Legal Personhood for Artificial Intelligences. North Carolina Law Review, 70(4), 1231–1287. Online:

Stone, Z. (2017, November 7). Everything You Need To Know About Sophia, The World’s First Robot Citizen. Forbes. Online:

Verheij, B. (2020). Artificial intelligence as law. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 28(1), 181–206. Online:

Veruggio, G. & Operto, F. (2006). Roboethics: A Bottom-Up Interdisciplinary Discourse in the Field of Applied Ethics in Robotics. International Review of Information Ethics, 6, 2–8. Online:

Wallach, W. & Allen, C. (2010). Moral Machines: Teaching Robots Right from Wrong. Oxford University Press. Online:

Walsh, A. (2017, October 28). Saudi Arabia grants citizenship to robot Sophia. Deutsche Welle. Online:

Weller, Ch. (2017, October 26). A robot that once said it would ‘destroy humans’ just became the first robot citizen. Insider. Online:

Wheeler, B. (2017). Giving Robots a Voice: Testimony, Intentionality, and the Law. In S. Thompson (Ed.), Androids, Cyborgs, and Robots in Contemporary Society and Culture (pp. 1–34). Hershey. Online:

Wirtz, B. W., Weyerer, J. C. & Geyer, C. (2018). Artificial Intelligence and the Public Sector – Applications and Challenges. International Journal of Public Administration, 42(7), 596–615. Online:

Wirtz, B. W. & Müller, W. M. (2018). An integrated artificial intelligence framework for public management. Public Management Review, 21(7), 1076–1100. Online:

Zebrowski, N. (2007, December 3). Dr. Sobel on Personhood and Rights. Northwestern Chronicle.

Legal sources

Draft Report with recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics (2015/2103(INL)) (31 May 2016). European Parliament, Committee on Legal Affairs. Online:

Regulation 679/2016. The protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation). European Parliament and Council. Online:

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions (30 November 2016). A European Strategy on Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems, a Milestone Towards Cooperative, Connected and Automated Mobility. Online:

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions (17 May 2018). Europe on the Move. Sustainable Mobility for Europe: Safe, Connected, and Clean. Online:


Download data is not yet available.